DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment and arguments, dated 07/29/2026, have been fully considered. Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended; and claim(s) 2 and 4 stand as originally or previously presented. The Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment. Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action dated 04/01/2026, have been withdrawn. The claims are newly rejected under 35 USC 103, as necessitated by amendment. Accordingly, this action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2019/0393486 A1; hereinafter "He"), in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 2008282687 A; hereinafter “Hayashi”; see attached machine translation for reference), as evidenced by Tian et al. ("Electrospun sandwich polysulfonamide/polyacrylonitrile/polysulfonamide composite nanofibrous membranes for lithium-ion batteries").
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a lithium metal secondary battery ([0014]) comprising a negative electrode layer (anode, [0014]), an intermediate layer (first anode protecting layer, [0004]), a solid electrolyte layer (electrolyte, [0014]), and a positive electrode layer (cathode, [0014]) stacked in this order (see FIG. 2), the negative electrode layer comprising a lithium metal layer ([0014]).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
He further discloses a protective layer (second anode-protecting layer; [0014]) that has ionic conductivity ([0014]) and no electron conductivity (separator that electronically separates; [0016]).
He fails to disclose a negative electrode layer wherein at least one of outer peripheral surfaces of the intermediate layer along a stacking direction abuts against and is covered with a protective layer, and the protector layer abuts against all of the outer peripheral surfaces of the intermediate layer along the stacking direction.
Hayashi teaches laminating an electrode film as a positive electrode film or a negative electrode film in the recess so as to contact the deposited electrode collector [0023] and that the solid electrolyte film is formed so that the surface of the electrode film to be formed and the substrate surface, which is the periphery of the recess, are smoothly and continuously coated. This allows the electrode collector and electrode film formed in the recess on the substrate to be densely coated with the solid electrolyte film, [0024]; see 1.1. Modified Figure 8 of Hayashi below.
<1.1. Modified Figure 8 of Hayashi>
PNG
media_image2.png
938
1089
media_image2.png
Greyscale
He and Hayashi are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium secondary batteries.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He to incorporate the teachings of Hayashi to have the protective layer abut against all the outer peripheral surfaces of the intermediate layer comprised in the negative electrode and the electrode, as shown by Hayashi with the electrolyte layer, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would avoid short circuits at the battery edge and to reduce the rate of defective products [0023], as the electrode film fabricated on the solid electrolyte film would not require a smaller area than the solid electrolyte film, therefore avoiding the effective area of the battery to decrease; and resulting in easily manufacture of efficient all-solid-state lithium secondary batteries with high energy density [0062] , as recognized by Hayashi.
Regarding claim 2, modified He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
He further discloses that the protective layer has ionic conductivity ([0014], the elastomer layer has a lithium-ion conductivity; [0058]).
With respect to the limitation, the protective layer has an ionic conductivity equal to or higher than an ionic conductivity of the solid electrolyte layer, He discloses that the elastomer layer has a lithium-ion conductivity from 10 −5 S/cm to 5×10−2 S/cm. [0058], and further discloses the use of a Celgard 2400 membrane as separator [0141]. He fails to explicitly disclose the ion conductivity of the Celgard 2400 membrane. However, Tian teaches the ion conductivity of Celgard 2400 to be 0.11x10-3 s/cm [see Table 2; page 11227]. Therefore the ionic conductivity of the protective layer (elastomer) should be 0.11x10-3 s/cm or more.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (10 −5 S/cm to 5×10−2 S/cm overlaps 0.11x10-3 s/cm or more) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 3, He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
He discloses a protective layer, but does not explicitly disclose the lithium metal secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein an entirety of a surface facing the a negative layer, among surfaces of the protective layer perpendicular to the stacking direction, abuts against and is covered with an insulating layer.
Hayashi teaches that the surfaces exposed to the outside air of the positive electrode film, negative electrode film, solid electrolyte film, electrode collector in contact with the positive electrode film, and electrode collector in contact with the negative electrode film are coated with a protective layer made of an insulating material, ([0043], see 1.1. Modified figure 8 of Hayashi above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He to incorporate the teachings of Hayashi to have an entirety of a surface facing the a negative layer, among surfaces of the protective layer perpendicular to the stacking direction, abuts against and is covered with an insulating layer. Doing so would result in making it possible to manufacture a battery with excellent stability and handling properties, and to further reduce the rate of defective products [0027], as recognized by Hayashi.
Regarding claim 4, modified He discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
He further discloses, the protective layer (the elastomer, [0157]) is monolithically formed with the solid electrolyte layer (infiltrated with a liquid electrolyte, [0157]).
He further discloses that the second anode-protecting layer is disposed between the first anode protecting layer (covering the lithium metal or lithium alloy foil or coating) and the porous separator (or solid-state electrolyte); [0098]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He to incorporate the teachings of Cui to monolithically form the protective layer with the solid electrolyte layer. Doing so would result in reducing the formation of dead lithium particles and the tendency to form dangerous Li dendrites [0157], as recognized by He.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (see Remarks dated 07/29/2026, page 4-5) that the amendment to claim 1, wherein the protective layer abuts against all of the outer peripheral surfaces of the intermediate layer along the stacking direction can more satisfactorily achieve guiding the Li ions while blocking the supply of electrons to the outer peripheral surfaces, thereby suppressing the deposition of the lithium metal.
Applicant further argues that In a case where the side surfaces of the intermediate layer are covered with a simple insulator, since the Li ions are not guided, the lithium metal may be deposited between the intermediate layer and the insulator. The Examiner maintains that the disclosed protective layer (elastomer) fulfills the claimed limitations of ionic conductivity and no electron conductivity. Therefore the layer disclosed by He would also guide the Li ions while blocking the supply of electrons to the outer peripheral surfaces, as the claimed protective layer.
Applicant argues that In a case where the side surfaces of the intermediate layer are covered with a simple insulator, lithium metal may be deposited between the intermediate layer and the insulator, since the Li-ions are not being guided, and that the problem can be avoided by the claimed protective layer. Therefore, the foregoing advantage can be more satisfactorily achieved by the configuration of the amended claims. Applicant further argues that the foregoing advantage is neither disclosed nor suggested in the cited documents; therefore the independent claim and dependent claims are believed to possess non-obviousness.
In response to applicant’s argument that the foregoing advantage is neither disclosed nor suggested in the cited documents, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, He discloses a protective layer (elastomer) that fulfills the claimed limitations of ionic conductivity and no electron conductivity, and an intermediate layer between the electrode and the electrolyte. Applicant discloses in the specifications that the protective layers may be, for example, a layer containing a solid electrolyte, similarly to the solid electrolyte layer [0036]. Further, Hayashi discloses a solid electrolyte layer that abuts against the peripheral surfaces of the electrode, since the structure of the protective layer is similar to the solid electrolyte layer, as disclosed in the specifications, there would be no structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to include the layer taught by Hayashi in the invention of He, is order to avoid short circuits at the battery edge (Hayashi: [0023]). Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 5712703879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.N.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights